Weaponizing Faith: The Danger of America’s One-Sided Narrative on Nigeria’s Security Crisis by Salau Gbenga

By Naija247news Editorial Board

When U.S. Senator Ted Cruz declared that Nigeria was witnessing a “Christian genocide,” he did not just misread a nation’s pain — he weaponized it. In the name of defending religious freedom, Washington’s religious right has again reduced a complex African security crisis to a simplistic morality play: Christians as victims, Muslims as villains, and Nigeria as the latest theatre of a holy war. The truth, as Reno Omokri rightly reminded the world this week, is far more complicated — and far more dangerous to distort.

Omokri, the political commentator and author, recently countered Cruz’s claims on ARISE News, rejecting the notion that Nigeria’s government is complicit in a campaign against Christians. His rebuttal followed Cruz’s introduction of the Nigeria Religious Freedom Accountability Act of 2025, which seeks to have Nigeria designated as a “Country of Particular Concern” and to impose sanctions on its officials. Such a move, Omokri warned, would punish ordinary Nigerians — both Christian and Muslim — while emboldening extremists who thrive on the illusion of religious war.

A Crisis of Governance, Not of Faith

Nigeria’s insecurity is not defined by religion but by a breakdown of governance and regional stability. The terrorist violence that has scarred states from Borno to Zamfara has killed both Christians and Muslims. When gunmen strike in Benue, the victims are mostly Christian because the region is predominantly Christian. When they raid Zamfara, the dead are mostly Muslim. The attackers are not crusaders or jihadis in a scriptural sense — they are profiteers of chaos, smugglers, bandits, and warlords sustained by a political economy of insecurity.

Yet in the echo chambers of Washington, such nuance is inconvenient. American politicians, seeking moral clarity for their domestic audiences, prefer binary narratives: good versus evil, Christian versus Muslim, freedom versus fanaticism. The result is policy driven by passion, not precision.

How the Libya Collapse Fueled Nigeria’s Pain

Omokri traced the roots of Nigeria’s current crisis to the 2011 NATO-led intervention in Libya, which toppled Muammar Gaddafi and unleashed a flood of weapons across the Sahel. That assessment is accurate — and sobering. From Burkina Faso to Mali, Niger, and northern Nigeria, the post-Libya arms bazaar created a generation of mercenaries without a country, soldiers without orders, and weapons without owners. The fallout was predictable: jihadist insurgencies, separatist movements, and criminal cartels found new life in a region where borders are porous and governance is weak.

This, not religion, is the architecture of Nigeria’s insecurity. To frame it as a genocide against Christians is to erase the shared suffering of Muslim communities displaced by violence and to ignore the structural drivers — poverty, corruption, climate change, and weak policing — that fuel extremism.

The Moral Danger of American “Whataboutism”

The U.S. political right has long used Nigeria as a moral prop. Each time an attack on Christians occurs, American pundits invoke it to score domestic points or justify interventionist legislation. Yet, when mosques are bombed or Muslim civilians massacred, the outrage is muted. This selective empathy is not solidarity; it is narrative engineering.

By portraying Nigeria as a stage for Christian persecution, Washington’s religious lobbies inadvertently give extremist groups the publicity they crave. They turn terror into theology — and policy into propaganda. Such framing also undermines Nigeria’s own inter-faith peacebuilding work, from grassroots reconciliation efforts in Jos to state-level security coordination in the North-East.

Diplomacy by Facts, Not by Faith

The ongoing fact-finding mission invited by Omokri — including U.S. civic leaders and religious figures — is a rare and commendable attempt to reset the conversation. By meeting with both the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) and Jama’atu Nasril Islam (JNI), and visiting internally displaced persons’ camps, the delegation has seen what Senator Cruz ignored: Nigeria’s crisis does not discriminate by creed.

The international community must respond with humility, not hysteria. If Washington truly wishes to help, it should focus on intelligence sharing, arms-tracking cooperation, and economic development — not punitive sanctions rooted in misinformation. A “Country of Particular Concern” label would only stigmatize the region and weaken the very institutions working to hold Nigeria together.

Faith as a Bridge, Not a Weapon

Nigeria’s resilience lies in its pluralism. Across the Middle Belt, Christian pastors and Muslim imams share pulpits to preach peace. In the North-East, faith-based NGOs rebuild villages side by side. This coexistence is fragile, but it endures — not because of foreign resolutions but because ordinary Nigerians refuse to let extremists define them.

To preserve that fragile coexistence, the narrative must shift from accusation to cooperation. The U.S. should listen more, legislate less; partner with Nigerian civil society, not pontificate from afar.

Conclusion: Complexity Is Not Confusion

Senator Cruz’s rhetoric may win applause at home, but it risks inflaming tensions abroad. Nigeria’s battle is not between Christians and Muslims. It is between chaos and order, truth and propaganda, governance and impunity. Those who mistake it for a holy war risk becoming its unwitting enablers.

Democracy demands nuance, and peace demands patience. In a world where misinformation travels faster than truth, moral clarity must begin with factual honesty. Nigeria deserves empathy, not exaggeration — partnership, not paternalism.

📌 Editor’s Note: For content partnerships and collaborations, reach out via editor@naija247news.com

Reporting by Naija247news in Lagos, Nigeria.